This is a very old thread, as anyone who checks the date of the last post above can tell. My original 65/67 match with Mr. Beddoes never produced much. He is an elderly man (if he is still with us) and wasn't interested in pursuing the possibilities.

The reason I am resurrecting this thread is because this morning I discovered a brand new 36/37 match with another Beddoes, this time one who doesn't list himself as "private". At 37 markers, my original Beddoes match was also 36/37, so I suspect this one could be a son or other close family member of the original.

This is a very old thread, as anyone who checks the date of the last post above can tell. My original 65/67 match with Mr. Beddoes never produced much. He is an elderly man (if he is still with us) and wasn't interested in pursuing the possibilities.

The reason I am resurrecting this thread is because this morning I discovered a brand new 36/37 match with another Beddoes, this time one who doesn't list himself as "private". At 37 markers, my original Beddoes match was also 36/37, so I suspect this one could be a son or other close family member of the original.

I sent him an email. We'll see if he responds.

Re the original Beddoes match, I even joined the Beddows/Beddoes DNA Project, which is so super top secret that only its admin can see the results. I found out by word of mouth (well, word of email) that my Mr. Beddoes does not match anyone else in his surname project. As time has gone on, however, he has come to match an ever-growing list of us Stevens/Stephens. This new Beddoes could be his first same-surname match, but I suspect this is his son or some similarly close family member.

I eventually quit the Beddows/Beddoes DNA Project: belonging to it was a complete waste of time, since only its admin could see the y-dna results. It's amazing to me that people would belong to such a project and put up with a state of affairs like that.

Anyway, I'm hoping this Mr. Beddoes is sufficiently interested in the truth of his heritage to pursue the possible connection.

This is a very old thread, as anyone who checks the date of the last post above can tell. My original 65/67 match with Mr. Beddoes never produced much. He is an elderly man (if he is still with us) and wasn't interested in pursuing the possibilities.

The reason I am resurrecting this thread is because this morning I discovered a brand new 36/37 match with another Beddoes, this time one who doesn't list himself as "private". At 37 markers, my original Beddoes match was also 36/37, so I suspect this one could be a son or other close family member of the original.

I sent him an email. We'll see if he responds.

Re the original Beddoes match, I even joined the Beddows/Beddoes DNA Project, which is so super top secret that only its admin can see the results. I found out by word of mouth (well, word of email) that my Mr. Beddoes does not match anyone else in his surname project. As time has gone on, however, he has come to match an ever-growing list of us Stevens/Stephens. This new Beddoes could be his first same-surname match, but I suspect this is his son or some similarly close family member.

I eventually quit the Beddows/Beddoes DNA Project: belonging to it was a complete waste of time, since only its admin could see the y-dna results. It's amazing to me that people would belong to such a project and put up with a state of affairs like that.

Anyway, I'm hoping this Mr. Beddoes is sufficiently interested in the truth of his heritage to pursue the possible connection.

The Welsh or Welsh border/Shropshire evidence seems to be mounting. I've got Samuel and Price in my haplotype cluster. Both of them are Welsh and have tested DF41+ now, and there's Beddoes, who has a Welsh surname (but who may be a biological Stevens/Stephens). Webb, as you mentioned before, is a surname common in Shropshire. My closest Webb match is 63/67 and has tested DF41+.

Samuel has ordered an upgrade from 12 to 67 markers. It will be interesting to see how our match holds up.

The Welsh or Welsh border/Shropshire evidence seems to be mounting. I've got Samuel and Price in my haplotype cluster. Both of them are Welsh and have tested DF41+ now, and there's Beddoes, who has a Welsh surname (but who may be a biological Stevens/Stephens). Webb, as you mentioned before, is a surname common in Shropshire. My closest Webb match is 63/67 and has tested DF41+.

Samuel has ordered an upgrade from 12 to 67 markers. It will interesting to see how our match holds up.

The Welsh or Welsh border/Shropshire evidence seems to be mounting. I've got Samuel and Price in my haplotype cluster. Both of them are Welsh and have tested DF41+ now, and there's Beddoes, who has a Welsh surname (but who may be a biological Stevens/Stephens). Webb, as you mentioned before, is a surname common in Shropshire. My closest Webb match is 63/67 and has tested DF41+.

Samuel has ordered an upgrade from 12 to 67 markers. It will interesting to see how our match holds up.

Cool, you can't get much better than Welsh matches ;)

I agree. It's pretty exciting for me, since I don't know who my immigrant y-dna ancestor was or where he came from.

@ RichHere is a interesting link to a site by Tyrone Bowes, who was a speaker at the Houston conference. Your search seems to be narrowing down to a similar approach that is used by Mr. Bowes.http://www.irishorigenes.com/

I even joined the Beddows/Beddoes DNA Project, which is so super top secret that only its admin can see the results.

What a joke! I've never heard of such a thing and I believe that FTDNA would consider that contrary to the reason that they host surname projects (free of charge) in the first place.

I agree. I even wrote Mr. Greenspan about it and complained, but apparently FTDNA regards its projects as virtually the personal property of the admins. I guess that might be a necessity unless they want to take over and start managing them themselves. Still, you would think they would step in and do something about such outrageous and extreme examples of mismanagement and selfishness.

@ RichHere is a interesting link to a site by Tyrone Bowes, who was a speaker at the Houston conference. Your search seems to be narrowing down to a similar approach that is used by Mr. Bowes.http://www.irishorigenes.com/

I like the YouTube tutorial video. That is pretty much what I have been trying to do over the years. Of course, I didn't know anyone had formalized the method, and I haven't gone as far as to try to pinpoint my matches' surnames in census records from the British Isles.

Part of my problem is that most of my matches, especially the closest ones, don't know where their immigrant y-dna ancestor came from either.

Thanks for that, though. It is pretty cool.

I haven't heard from this latest Beddoes match, by the way. That's not a good sign. Usually the enthusiastic guys respond pretty quickly.

@ RichHere is a interesting link to a site by Tyrone Bowes, who was a speaker at the Houston conference. Your search seems to be narrowing down to a similar approach that is used by Mr. Bowes.http://www.irishorigenes.com/

I like the YouTube tutorial video. That is pretty much what I have been trying to do over the years. Of course, I didn't know anyone had formalized the method, and I haven't gone as far as to try to pinpoint my matches' surnames in census records from the British Isles.

Part of my problem is that most of my matches, especially the closest ones, don't know where their immigrant y-dna ancestor came from either.

Thanks for that, though. It is pretty cool.

I haven't heard from this latest Beddoes match, by the way. That's not a good sign. Usually the enthusiastic guys respond pretty quickly.

I do have one critique of Dr. Bowes' methodology. He uses 37-marker matches in his work. That, I think, is a major flaw, absent SNP testing or restricting matches to a gd of perhaps 1 or, at the most, 2. It is possible to have a 37-marker "match" with someone who does not even belong to your haplogroup or subclade.

In my case, my 390=23 and 447=24 make me prone to 37-marker "matches" with guys who are actually U106+ (and usually L48+). When they go out to 67 markers, I can see their telltale 492=13 (I have 492=12) and eliminate them from my list.

I think I read in his article that 12 and 25 markers are used as well. Also, I might have missed it, but I don' see much about haplogroups.Of course, his research is mostly based in a small area where the same families have lived for hundreds of years, and are most likely L21+ of some sort.

It would be handy if FTDNA gave the user the option of overriding the project admin, thus allowing their haplotype info to appear on the standard ftdna hosted results page

I'm not sure how that would work, but if enough members of that project were upset about the situation, I'm sure it would change. Apparently they don't care all that much and were recruited by the project admin mainly because he was interested. So it truly is his personal project. I was probably the first (and only) person ever to complain about it.